1

Over the past few months IUPAB

Executive Committee put forward some

initiatives that wer e approved by the

Council. I am presenting them now to all

our Adhering Bodies and to all the

Members of the Biophysical

Community. Information about all these

novelties is provided within this issue.

Creation of a new Task Force on “The

use of Big Data in Biophysics”. Since

the appearance of computers that are

increasingly more powerful it has

become possible to handle massive

information about any issue and this is

accessible to an increasing number of

users. In this context it was created

within The International Science Council

(ICSU) a Committee on Data (CODATA)

(http://www.codata.org/) . IUPAB is

affiliated to ICSU and also to this

Committee. Now a new Task Force has

been formed and Prof. Dr. Silvia Alonso

(Argentina) will act as Convenor. We

use these lines to inform to all

interested biophysicist that you may

adhere to this Task Force to get

informed about their activities and to

participate in them. Simply contact Prof.

Alonso (silviadelvalle@gmail.com) .

Joint event of IUPAB Task Forces on

Education and Capacity Building and in

Structural Biology. A workshop called

“Biophysics and Structural Biology at

Synchrotrons” will be held in Cape Twon

(South Africa) on 17-26 January, 2019.

IUPAB will fund students from

underdeveloped countries attending

this event. This activity is within of the

priorities of IUPAB of promoting

Biophysics, especially in continents like

Africa.

XXIII International School of Pure and

Applied Biophyics. This event will be

held in Venice (Italy) on February 4-8,

2019. It will deal with ”Emerging Tools

in Biomechanics: from tissues down to

single molecules”, IUPAB will also fund

students from underdeveloped

countries attending this activity.

Introducing IUPAB Focused Meetings.

The Executive Committee has proposed

and the Council has approved to hold

IUPAB Meetings on specific topics in

years in which we do not have the main

triennial Congress. These Focused

Meetings must be IUPAB Meetings and

not to be confused with annual Meeting

organized by national societies.

Promoting this activity IUPAB wants to

increase its visibility, holding a main

activity every year, in addition to

funding workshops and courses as we

do now.

New initiatives of IUPAB Executive

Committee and IUPAB Council Message from the Secretary General

IUPAB News #69

In this issue:

New initiative of IUPAB Executive Committee and IUPAB Council

IUPAB Focused Mee-tings

The use of Big Data in Biophysics

A view on peer review

Impact Factor and Biop-hysics

Young Biophysicists in the Spotlight: Karin Korn-müller

A Biophysicist’s Portrait: Georg Pabst

Young Initiative on Biop-hysics: Seeding the futu-re of biophysics in Ar-gentina

Meeting Reports

Announcements

Juan Carmelo Gómez-Fernández ,

IUPAB Secretary General

September, 2018

1

2

3

4

7

9

10

12

14

19

International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics

2

IUPAB Council has agreed to sponsor

one Focused Meeting in years in which

we do not hold our triennial Congress.

The first occasion in which one of these

Meetings is to be organized will be

2021. The organization of these

Meetings should be carried out within a

country which is represented in IUPAB.

It will be preferred to have co-

organizers from two or more countries.

IUPAB will provide partial financial

support.

These meetings are supposed to bring

together researchers interested in a

given topic, but an added value will be

that participants will come from

different disciplines. Topics must be

timely and dealing with cutting-edge

science, covering 3-4 days and of clear

relevance for Biophysics. A gender and

geographical balance will be required

when considering the list of speakers.

Regular annual Meetings of Societies

will not be funded.

IUPAB must appear as the main and

major sponsor of the Meeting and the

sponsorship must be clearly advertised

in a very prominent way in all printed

and electronic material (website, flyers,

etc). The name of the Meeting must be

“IUPAB Focused Meeting on…”.

Attendance to these Meetings must be

open to participants from all countries,

and with special encouragement to

admit participants from countries

where biophysics is emerging or from

developing countries.

A bid to organize these meetings must

provide the following details in the

application:

-Title, dates and location. The Focused

Meeting should take place in a country

with an IUPAB Adhering Body. The

dates of the Focused Meeting should

not overlap with other IUPAB events,

and should not take place within a year

in which an IUPAB triennial Congress

will be held.

-A brief description of meeting's topic

and themes, the opportunity and

importance of the topic, and the

adequacy of the location should be

emphasized.

-The proposed meeting dates and

number of anticipated attendees should

be given.

-Focused Meetings should normally

have 100-300 participants. Particular

attention should be paid to

participation of young scientists (Ph.D.

students and post-doctoral fellows).

-Scientific program. A preliminary

programme should be submitted with

the application. The programme should

be diverse (including lectures, open

discussions, poster sessions), and it

should be developed for a period of 3-4

working days. Limited social activities

may be planned as well. The final

Scientific Programme should be

approved by IUPAB Executive

Committee, and it should be submitted

at least 6 months in advance of the

dates proposed for the Meeting.

The organizer(s) should provide a

detailed budget in €. IUPAB’s

contribution will be to a maximum of

7000 € for students from countries

where biophysics is emerging or from

developing countries, plus a maximum

of 6000 € to underwrite general

expenses.

Organizers of approved Meetings must

provide IUPAB Secretay General with a

flyer advertising the Meeting as soon as

possible, to be displayed in our website

and published in IUPAB News. This flyer

IUPAB Focused Meetings by Juan Carmelo Gómez-Fernández

IUPAB Secretary General

IUPAB News #69

3

should be sent to IUPAB Secretary

General not later than 9 months before

the fixed days for such a Meeting.

Deadlines To organize a Focused Meeting in 2021

the application deadline will be April 30,

2019.

Report A report (the form for which can be

downloaded from the IUPAB website),

should be sent to the IUPAB Secretary

General and to the Treasurer, not later

than three months after the conclusion

of the Focused Meeting. The report

should include:

1) The detailed scientific program.

2) A list (including nationality and

gender) of participants and lecturers.

3) The detailed budget.

4) A brief report of about 1000 words

written by the organizers and

accompanied by 2-3 pictures or

illustrations, to be published by IUPAB

News and to be posted in IUPAB

website.

Applications Applications should be sent to the

IUPAB Secretary General.

The selection will be carried out by

IUPAB Council (formed by Executive

Committee members and Councilors).

A new IUPAB Task Force has been

constituted to link with CODATA.

CODATA is the Committee on Data of

the International Council for Science

(ICSU) and IUPAB is affiliated to

CODATA.

Prof. Dr. Silvia Alonso (Universidad

Nacional de Quilmes, Argentina),

Councilor of IUPAB, will act as Convenor

of this new Task Force.

Currently, a 3-year program is ongoing

and is supposed to finish in 2018.The

CODATA Strategic Plan 2015 and

Prospectus of Strategy and

Achievement 2016 identify three

priority areas:

1. Promoting principles, policies and

practices for Open Data and Open

Science;

2. Advancing the frontiers of data

science;

3. Building capacity for Open Science by

improving data skills

and the functions of

national science

systems needed to

support open data.

CODATA achieves these objectives

through a number of standing

committees and strategic executive led

initiatives, and through its Task Groups

and Working Groups. CODATA supports

the Data Science Journal and

collaborates on major data conferences

like SciDataCon and International Data

Week.

The new IUPAB Task Force can take

advantage of CODATA activity, so that

those who join the Task Force would

have access to CODATA news and

interact with other CODATA members.

Last June, the ICSU-CODATA

Commission on Data Standards for

Science convened the first Inter-Union

Workshop on Data Standards:

Developing a Roadmap for Data

Integration. Its purpose was to share

details of data and information

activities, agree on good practice, seek

consensus about how unions and

disciplinary groups can best work

together in establishing a global

network of scientific research data that

is FAIR – i.e., Findable, Accessible,

Interoperable and Reusable. The

information will soon be available

(November).

All interested biophysicists, working in a

country affiliated to IUPAB or nationals

of a country affiliated to IUPAB, may

apply to the Convenor, to joint the new

Task Force (silviadelvalle@gmail.com).

The use of Big Data in Biophysics New IUPAB Task Force

Prof. Dr. Silvia Alonso

IUPAB News #69

4

Next events associated to

CODATA:

-International Data Week, Gaborone,

Botswana, 5-8 November 2018

http://internationaldataweek.org/

registration

-International Workshop on Data

Science 2018 - Present & Future of

Open Data & Open Science

12 – 15 November 2018

Citizens Cultural Hall, Mishima,

Shizuoka, Japan

https://ds.rois.ac.jp/article/dsws_2018/

-International conference - Data Value

Chain in Science & Territories

14-15 March 2019, Paris-Val d´Europe

http://www.codata-france.org/en/

Scrutiny of scientific work is a

fundamental pillar of Science. It is not

only needed for correctness, in a purely

technical sense, but also takes care of

originality, novelty and significance,

ensuring that the scientific work

contributes to generating new

knowledge. There are two stages where

this task is especially important: before

the start of a scientific investigation

(projects) and when the investigation

yields results ( publications). At both

stages the dominant (almost exclusive)

method for evaluation is reviewing by

peers.

A precursor of peer review began in

England in the early 19 th century, with

referees commissioned by the Royal

Society of London to write reports on

manuscripts sent for publication in

Philosophical Transactions [1]. A

standardized

referee system

developed from

this point among

the English

scientific societies

and slowly spread

to independent

journals and

outside the

Anglophone world. However, it was in

the 1960s when refereeing propagated

as the method to objectively judge

Science (although the embracement of

this system was delayed by some

journals, like Nature, which adopted it

in 1973) [1]. During that period of the

20 th century the scientific activities

experienced a huge expansion,

especially in the USA, with a massive

increase in public funding and a parallel

social and political demand for objective

methods to judge scientific quality. In

fact, the term peer review was first

used in evaluation procedures by

American funding agencies of that time

and was later used as a synonym of

refereeing for the case of revision of

publications. Thus, classical peer review,

either of projects or papers, is a

relatively young system. But perhaps

most importantly, it has never

consolidated as a unique solid model

and was, from the beginning, put into

question [1]. It is then not surprising

that in current times, with technological

changes affecting the ways of

communicating Science, the future of

A view on peer review* By Jesús Salgado, Jorge Alegre-Cebollada, Xavier Daura and

Teresa Giráldez Biofísica Magazine Team of Editors

*This article has been reproduced from “Biofísica-Magazine” (Sociedad de Biofísica de

España) issue 11 - May-August 2018, with the permission of the publisher

Classical peer

review is

relatively young.

It was

questioned from

the beginning

and has never

consolidated as

a unique model

IUPAB News #69

5

peer review is subject of a particularly

vivid debate.

Overflowed system Today, the discussion about peer review

connects with multiple other problems

of Science [ 2] as well as with profound

changes affecting

modern publishing

[3, 4]. With the

dominance of

bibliometrics as

the measure to

evaluate scientific

performance,

publishing has acquired a tremendous

importance [5] and peer review, as the

method employed to control what is

published (and where), has become a

crucial variable. Added to this, complex

problems have emerged that affect

directly to the quality of Science and

thus uncover inefficiencies of the

evaluation mechanisms, like poor

reproducibility, fabrication of data,

plagiarism or even direct corruption of

the peer review system [6]. One would

expect that the response of the

scientific community to the clear need

of stronger and more effective

evaluation procedures would be to

strengthen peer review, or even to

evolve it into a new system, adapted to

the challenges of the present and the

future. However, in the vast majority of

cases peer review continues being

performed as it was conceived more

than 50 years ago, despite its well

known weaknesses.

The bibliometric epidemy [5]

contributes to inflate the number of

publications, and with that, the

numbers of publishers and journals

have also grown exponentially. This

process is fuelled by digitalization and

automation, which makes publishing

easier, cheaper and quicker than ever.

But can proper assessment, criticism

and discussion of scientific work be

similarly escalated and accelerated?

Obviously not. First, this part of the

business cannot be easily automatized

and needs the cautious time and

attention of expert human readers /

evaluators. Furthermore, the scientific

methodology is quickly changing and

becoming more and more

sophisticated. All branches of natural

sciences (including, of course,

Biophysics) are increasingly becoming

multidisciplinary, meaning that diverse

and well prepared experts are needed

to judge the scientific work. With this

requirements it is easy to visualize that

the pool of possible (capable) referees

must be of smaller size than the pool of

their peer authors. In practice, the pool

of reviewers is further reduced because

of the lack of incentives to perform

difficult, time constrained and barely

recognized reviewing tasks. This all

makes finding adequate referees an

herculean exercise and accentuates the

weakness of the system, in a vicious

circle.

Blindness vs transparency? In the scientific

community there

is consensus about

the importance of

a solid peer review

system and the

need to tailor its

traditional scheme

for current and

future exigencies.

However, there is

no clear consensus

yet about the actions to take –more

than paying homage to the stoic

anonymous reviewers [7].

A major discussion is settled about the

convenient level of transparency [8].

First, we remind that the pioneer

refereeing English system, as conceived

and exercised originally by WILLIAM

WHEWELL [1], started being completely

open, with reports published and signed

by the referee (in a especial

Proceedings journal). But it was soon

realized that such an option prevented

criticism and discouraged negative

reports. Thus, after a couple of years of

openness, refereeing became

anonymous and reports were no longer

published [1]. Today’s classical peer

review is still mainly single blinded, with

the identity of the authors know by

reviewers, who remain unknown to the

authors. This system has been attacked

in two opposing directions. On the one

hand, it is argued that the uncovered

identity of authors facilitates possible

discrimination because of gender,

ethnic background, country of

affiliation, personal relations or prestige

of previous work. This has led to defend

a double-blinded system [9], with

unknown identities of both authors and

referees. Although this option is

preferred, according to some studies, it

is recognized that is very difficult in

practice to implement, since in many

cases the type of work, cited references

and other details can betray the identity

of authors [10].

On the other hand, it has been pointed

out that a covered identity makes

referees potentially immune from their

possible unfair, harsh or unsound

criticisms, which is used to defend a

completely open system. Openness, at

different levels, is gaining adepts as it

fits well with new tendencies of open

Peer review, as

the method to

control what is

published (and

where), has

become a

crucial variable

Openness is

seen as

positive: Fits

with tendencies

of modern

publishing,

brings

transparency

and provides

ways to reward

reviewers

IUPAB News #69

6

publishing and has

a positive

connotation,

because is seen as

a way to bring

transparency to

the publication

process. It also can

provide ways to

reward the

reviewers via publication of their

reports along with authors’

manuscripts, which helps visualizing the

usefulness of the peer reviewing

process, even when the identity of the

reviewer is kept anonymous. Although

still a minority [11],

an increasing number

of journals are

already

experimenting with

various degrees of

openness. For

instance, Nature

Communications and

the four journals

published by EMBO

offer the authors (and

referees) the choice

of open peer review,

although the identity

of the reviewers is not revealed. A

number of medical journals like those

from BioMed Central and BMJ have

decided to go further and publish also

the complete pre-publication and peer

review history, including the name and

affiliation of reviewers [8]. It is argued

that this fully open model has the

positive advantages of reviewers being

more honest and constructive [12],

although critics note that it may favour

prestigious institutions from English

speaking countries [13] or discourage

criticism by junior researchers, who may

fear retaliation by senior colleagues

[14]. Despite this concerns, a majority

of participants in the meeting on

Transparency, Recognition, and

Innovation in Peer Review in the Life

Sciences, organized by ASAPbio, HHMI

and Wellcome on February 7-9, 2018 at

HHMI headquarters in Chevy Chase

[14], (~81%, voting in person or through

the internet) favoured the option of

“publishing the content of peer reviews

(with or without the reviewers’ names)

and making these reports a formal part

of the scholarly record with an

associated DOI”. In line with this, a large

survey published in PLoS ONE by the

end of 2017 also shows support (~60%)

among the scientific community to open

peer review [15].

Incentives and rewards We all know that the referee work is a

voluntary “duty” with hardly any other

motivation than the personal conviction

to contribute to the soundness of one’s

scientific discipline. But, almost by

definition, the required expert scientists

are very busy people under strong

stress and with exhausting

responsibilities at their institutions and

research groups. Is “sense of duty”

enough to involve them in the huge task

of peer review?

Although a study promoted by Taylor &

Francis Group concluded that “receiving

free access to the Journal is the factor

that would incentivise people most to

review” [16], according to a recent

survey [ 17], researchers ask for other

incentives (Figure 1). Particularly, they

would like that peer reviewing activities

are “taken into consideration when they

are evaluated for grants, jobs or

promotions.” The issue was among the

ones discussed in the aforementioned

ASAPbio meeting [14], where the

majority of

participants

favoured a “formal

recognition and

credit for peer

review activities

from funding

agencies and

institutions, and

acknowledging all

contributors to a

peer review report

(such as students

and postdocs)

when submitting it

to a journal.”

The need for proper peer review

recognition is intensively debated [18,

19]. It has even been argued that free

reviewing (and editorial work) is “not

fair in ethical terms”, especially when

publishing is such a profitable business

[20]. Setting a standard mechanism for

recognition of peer review activities is a

main target of a partner initiative by

F1000 and ORCID [21].

Meanwhile, Publons has created a data-

base and a validation system to make

possible that researchers who

Expert

scientists are

busy people

with exhausting

responsibilities.

Is “sense of

duty” enough to

involve them in

peer review?

Figure 1. Opinion of scientists about recognition of their peer reviewing

activities. Results of a survey carried out within the context of a recent ASAPbio |

HHMI | Wellcome meeting on Transparency, Recognition, and Innovation in Peer

Review in the Life Sciences (Chevy Chase, Maryland, February 7–9, 2018) [17]

IUPAB News #69

7

We live in a rapidly changing world.

Changes affect scientific publications

as to many other things. Thirty years

ago when one wanted to select a

journal to publish a paper, the

selection depended mainly on the

prestige of the publication. Even, in

some cases, there was a preference to

publish in Journals close to everyone.

For example, many people from

Europe tended to publish in European

Journals and Americans in American

Journals. The introduction by ISI of

Journal of Citations Reports and the so

called Impact Factors (IFs) introduced

changes on these tendencies. IFs were

progressively popularized and many

Governments, Universities and

Research Institutes started using these

IFs to qualify the scientific work of

persons applying for a job or for a

grant. Of course that we may discuss if

this is or not appropriate and I have the

impression that in North America, for

example, this is followed with less

enthusiasm than in Europe. But I do not

want to enter here in this controversy.

The fact is that, we like it or not, this is

participate in peer review get credited

from their effort [ 22]. The goal is

double: On the one hand, it intends to

work as a platform to share peer

reviews and discussions, provided that

their dissemination is not prohibited by

the journals involved in the

publications. On the other hand,

researchers who register at Publons are

able to show their record of verifiable

peer review activities, so that they can

get credit to be used in their individual

evaluations, either for performance

enquiries, promotions or grant

applications. A few institutions, like

Harvard, recognize already peer review

and editorial activities, which must be

reported in annual evaluations. This is a

big step forward, but needs to extend

worldwide in order to exert a significant

impact.

In summary, there is little doubt that a

deep improvement of the strategies for

assessing the quality of Science is a

most urgent need. However, as we just

discussed, the general perception is that

this crucial and demanding task is not

sufficiently rewarded. Very interesting

initiatives exist to adapt, at multiple

levels, classical peer review. Although

the changes already in place seem

mostly experimental, we can foresee

that a renewed refereeing system,

characterized by increased openness,

rewarding and recognition, will soon

crystallize.

References 1. CSISZAR A. “Peer review: Troubled from the

start.” Nature, 2016, 532: 306.

2. BELLUZ J, PLUMER B, RESNICK B. “The 7 biggest

problems facing science, according to 270

scientists.” Vox, sep. 2016.

3. ARNS M. “Open access is tiring out peer

reviewers.” Nature, 2014, 515: 467.

4. CURRY S. “Peer review, preprints and the speed

of science.” The Guardian, sep. 2015.

5. MACILWAIN C. “Halt the avalanche of

performance metrics.” Nature, 2013, 500: 255.

6. FERGUSON C, MARCUS A, ORANSKY I.

“Publishing: The peer-review scam.” Nature, 2014,

515: 480.

7. SCHIERMEIER Q. “Monument to peer review

unveiled in Moscow.” Nature, may 2017.

8. PULVERER B. “Transparency showcases

strength of peer review.” Nature, 2010, 468: 29.

9. CRESSEY D. “Journals weigh up double-blind

peer review.” Nature, jul. 2014.

10. WARE M. “Peer review: benefits, perceptions

and alternatives.” Publishing Research

Consortium, 2008, 4: 1.

11. PARKS S, GUNASHEKAR S. “Tracking Global

Trends in Open Peer Review.” RAND blog, oct.

2017.

12. DECOURSEY T. “The pros and cons of open

peer review.” Nature, 2006.

13. HOPEWELL S, COLLINS GS, BOUTRON I, YU L-

M, COOK J, SHANYINDE M, WHARTON R,

SHAMSEER L, ALTMAN DG. “Impact of peer review

on reports of randomised trials published in open

peer review journals: retrospective before and

after study.” BMJ, 2014, 349: g4145.

14. BRAINARD J. “Researchers debate whether

journals should publish signed peer reviews.”

Science, feb. 2018.

15. ROSS-HELLAUER T, DEPPE A, SCHMIDT B.

“Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and

experience amongst editors, authors and

reviewers.” PLOS ONE, 2017, 12: e0189311.

16. “Peer review: a global view.” Taylor and

Francis, 2015.

17. “Peer-Review Survey.” ASAPbio, 2017.

18. EDITORIAL. “Review rewards.” Nature, 2014,

514: 274.

19. CURRY S. “Peer review is essential to good

science – it’s time to credit expert reviewers.” The

Guardian, jun. 2017.

20. DA SILVA JAT, KATAVIĆ V. “Free

editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry.”

Ethics & Bioethics, 2016, 6: 203.

21. HAAK L. “F1000 and ORCID Partner to Launch

Standard for Citing Peer Review Activities.” ORCID

blog, may 2015.

22. VAN NOORDEN R. “The scientists who get

credit for peer review.” Nature, oct. 2014.

Impact Factor and Biophysics by Juan Carmelo Gómez-Fernández

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Murcia, Spain

Juan Carmelo Gómez-Fernández.

IUPAB News #69

8

used with increased frequency. In

consequence scientific workers are

looking desperately for Journals with

high IFs.

There is a further invention: quartiles (a

quartile is each of four equal groups

into which a population can be divided

according to the distribution of values

of a particular

variable, IF in this

case). In many cases

the scientific quality

of an applicant is

judged through a

quantitative scale, in which papers

published in the first quartile (the one

with the highest Ifs values) deserves

more points than another published in

the second quartile. In these

qualification systems the historical

record of a certain journal or if it is

published in a given country are not at

all appreciated, researchers will look for

the journal with the highest possible IFs

and quartile. Now, let us consider a

problem. A given journal may be in the

second quartile if is included only in

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology but

it may be in first quartile if is also

included in Biophysics. There are many

cases of journals included in more than

one category with different standings

depending on the Category that it is

considered. In most cases it is enough

to be in the first quartile (Q1) to be

given the maximum of points in the

mentioned quantitative scales. In some

cases even deciles are considered with

the same considerations than for

quartiles.

What happens is that ISI has a

tremendous power to modulate this

state of things. The reason is that this

company determines if a Journal is

included in a certain division (Category)

or not and this may be decisive for

putting it in a first quartile or decile.

Therefore it may increase the prestige

of a Journal or the quality of a

researcher judged in this mode certainly

arguable. Not long ago, for example,

they created a new Category

Biochemical Research Methods and

Journals that were occupying not very

high positions in the ranking of

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

were given a boost and were now

happily positioned in a first quartile.

I ignore how ISI can establish if a Journal

should be or not included in a Category,

in particular in the Category Biophysics.

My impression is that the title of the

Journal is very important to take this

decision, but still, looking at the

Journals included in this category, I

suspect that some other factors may be

involved.

If one inspects the Journals included in

Biophysics it can be seen that there are

72. Of them there will be 7 as D1 (first

decile) and 18 as Q1 (first quartile).

What worries me is that at least one of

the first seven (D1) and 5 or 6 of the

first 18 (Q1) rarely publish research in

Biophysics but they are more oriented

towards Biochemistry or Cell Biology. I

know that in many cases it is very

difficult to define the borders between

sciences related with Molecular and Cell

Biology but I think that in this particular

case the problem to which I am pointing

out is very real. The inclusion of these

non-genuine biophysically oriented

Journals creates a distortion of the field,

decreasing the available journals in Q1

that will publish Biophysics research.

This trend is also seen for other Journals

in the other quartiles of the Category

Biophysics. Also, there are Journals with

a high percentage of biophysically

oriented papers, currently included in

other Categories as

Physics or Chemical

Physics that are not

included in

Biophysics.

Another problem is that many of the

first positions are occupied by Journals

specialized in publishing reviews, but

this is a different problem to be

discussed in a future occasion.

What can we do at this respect? If the

policy used by employers and

organizations awarding grants will

continue using IFs as today (and I

forecast that they will) I think that

scientists should claim for a higher

accuracy when defining Categories in

bibliographical analysis. Perhaps even

we should propose that this function

should be played by International

Organizations of scientists (non for

profit organizations) as it happens with

for example chemical nomenclature or

units. This will ensure a better accuracy

when establishing which journal should

be or not in a certain Category and it

could allow a higher fairness for

scientists. Is this possible? I know that it

will not be at all easy, given the conflicts

of interest that may arise, but I think

that it is worthwhile to fight to improve

the current state of things.

*The opinions expressed here are solely

attributable to the author.

Calculating the Impact Factor (IF). y is the year of the IF

IUPAB News #69

9

Whenever you meet Karin you are

welcomed with a big smile and you are

instantly infected with her enthusiasm

and positive mood. Not only that she is

blessed with an optimistic and lively

character - I am impressed that Karin

manages to pub-lish a top 10 research

article as a first author every year.

When I asked her how to combine such

successful re-search output with such a

well-balanced attitude, she attributed

this to the crea-tive and inspiring

atmosphere and peo-ple around her.

Karin is researcher at the Medical Uni-

versity of Graz in the nanomedicine

laboratory of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ruth

Prassl. One particular strength of Ruth’s

re-search team is her talent to establish

and maintain long lasting and fruitful

collabora-tions. Whether it is within the

newly established Gott-fried Schatz

Research Center, or connecting

institutes from all three Graz

universities, or in national and inter-

national teams – Karin is engaged in

many interdiscipli-nary research

projects. The idea of interdisciplinarity

is visible throughout Karin’s scientific

education. “Well, I was fascinated by so

many things, I couldn’t pinpoint it to

classi-cal physics, biology, or medicine.”

Karin explains. That’s why she decided

to study molecular biology, followed by

a masters in biochemistry and

molecular

biomedicine, and a

PhD in biophysics.

When asked, she

considers herself a

trained structural

biol-ogist with a

strong background

in bio-chemistry,

who uses the

exciting toolkit of

biophysicists, but

always within the

frame of medical

relevance and

applicability.

When Karin started

in Ruth’s lab, one of

the research tasks

was the

crystallization of a

tricky protein. This

protein kept re-searchers around the

globe busy for dec-ades. At that time,

Karin was keen to tack-le this research

topic with a totally new ap-proach. She

was inspired by a visit by the distin-

guished expert from the MIT, who

proposed designer peptides as

alternative to conventional detergents

in protein crystallography. Indeed,

when Karin tested their poten-tial,

some of these designer peptides

performed quite well as detergents,

however, even more astonishing were

their self-assembling properties. as

novel biomaterials for future medical

applications.

Karin immediately was captivated by

the beauty of structures which these

peptides spontaneously form in

solution. Re-markably, these initially

monomeric peptides attach to each

other to form highly ordered

supramolecular structures with an

Above a certain concentration peptides spontaneously self-

assemble into highly ordered supramolecular structures.

These structures are the basis for the development of novel

nano-materials for medical applications.

Young Biophysicists in the Spotlight:

Karin Kornmüller Medical University of Graz; Gottfried Schatz Research

Center for Cell Signaling, Metabolism and Aging;

Biophysics; Nanomedicine Group

by Rainer Schindl *This article has been reproduced from “Biophysics News” (Austrian Biophysical Society)

Issue 14 - August 2018, with the permission of the publisher

Karin Kornmüller, Medical University of

Graz

IUPAB News #69

10

Mir ist dann eingefallen, dass …”

describes one of the key experienc-es

in science. It’s hard to translate to

English language. “I have an idea”

doesn’t really capture the stochastic

process of being struck by an insight. It

needs prepara-tion, though. You can’t

just sit at your computer, typing your

latest manuscript or grant proposal.

The “Einfall” (inspiration) requires

suitable environment, and the

appropriate mood. Quite often, it

happens when relaxing after a

conference, a hearing, or – as in case of

Georg Pabst – at the end of an

exhaustive poster session. “I strolled

around at the 2015 EBSA meeting in

Dresden, tired of the many posters I’ve

seen, and gazed out into the distance.”

A figure on one of the posters caught

his atten-tion. “Ah, diffraction data,

that may be interesting, I’ll have a

look”. There was a student, who used E.

coli as active swimmers to modulate

interactions of col-loidal particles. “I

was not so much inter-ested in the

colloidal physics, but in the fact that

one can do diffraction experi-ments on

live cells!” The “Einfall” was there, and

after a preliminary experiment and

some discussions with colleagues, a

grant proposal was submitted and

funded. “We’ve just started with this

astonishing level of perfection. Self-

assembled peptide super-structures

have size ranges from a few

nanometers to sub-micrometers. Very

simple in their design and composed of

only naturally occurring amino-acids,

the peptides promise a huge potential.

These include delivery systems for

targeted drug- or gene-delivery and 3D

scaffolds for tissue-engineering. Many

of the peptides form tubular or

spherical structures, but Karin has a

particular intuition for finding unique

architectures.

At the Biophysical Society Meeting in

San Francisco, Karin presented new,

spectacular data that was promptly

rewarded with the internationally

recognized Student Research Achieve-

ment Award. Investigating a novel

peptide, all the scattering curves from

Synchrotron small angle X-ray scattering

measure-ments promised something

unexpected. Months of meticulous

fitting function development and

structure refinement, crossche-cking

with electron-microscopy and

spectroscopy techniques, resulted in

the discovery of the first self-assembled

supra-molecular peptide double helix.

The real beauty of the double helix was

revealed when Karin got cryo-EM

pictures that per-fectly fitted to her

proposed model structure.

Since designer peptides can adopt only

a rather limited number of basic

architectures (vesicles, tubes, fibers,

helical ribbons, flat sheets and a donut

structure have been found in the past

few years), the discovery of this new

morphology was highly exciting. Karin’s

good sense for designing pepti-des that

self-assemble into unique architectures

led also to the discovery of only rarely

observed peptide lamellae, which

strikingly mimic lipid membranes.

Only recently she received the ESG

Nano Prize 2018, an advancement

award of the Erwin Schrödinger Society

to support talented young scientists, for

her research on lamel-lar peptide

structures. A major goal of Karin is to

combine her curiosity driven research

with practical medical applica-tions.

With respect to applying peptides as

novel materials, a large focus of her

research is the investigation of peptide

interactions with artificial and biological

membranes. In the future she aims to

expand this approach, in order to

answer fundamental questi-ons: what

happens at different hierarchical levels,

when peptide nanomaterials are

interfaced with biolo-gical materials?

What happens at the memb-rane level?

What hap-pens at cell level, and what

happens at the tissue level? Every

question by itself is an ambitious

challenge, but Karin is a dedicated

optimist, so she always sets her goals

high.

A Biophysicist’s Portrait: Georg Pabst* Karl Franzens University Graz

by Gerhard Schütz *This article has been reproduced from “Biophysics News” (Austrian Biophysical Society) Issue

14 - August 2018, with the permission of the publisher

Georg Pabst, Karl Franzens University

Graz

IUPAB News #69

11

project: we will be able to see for the

first time, how antimicrobial peptides

act on a bacterial membrane with

milliseconds time resolu-tion!” This is

what most of us know Georg Pabst for:

a membrane biophysicist, with a deep

understanding on how lipids and

proteins feel in a bilayer. But let’s start

from the beginning. Georg Pabst grew

up in Zell am See as an

Otolaryngologist’s son. “In school I was

not so much interested in mo-lecular

cell biology, however: there were too

many complicated terms. I liked quan-

tum physics and astronomy.” So Georg

de-cided to study technical physics, and

he moved to TU Graz. “I always wanted

to go to Graz. Compared to Karl

Franzens Univer-sity, the TU Graz ap-

peared more attractive, because it

offered the clear perspective for easily

finding a job in industry later on. He

graduated with a work on the

trajectories of charged particles in a

time of flight mass spectrometer. “Then

I wanted to do some-thing new.” Again,

an “Einfall” came, in this case as a job

offer for a PhD position in the group of

Peter Laggner at the Institute of

Biophysics and

Nanosystems

Research of the

Austrian Academy of

Sciences in Graz. “In

fact, I didn’t have

high expecta-tions

for my application,

since the job offer

was already ex-pired

by a year or so. And

I didn’t understand

too much of the text

on the adver-

tisement.” What he

understood, though,

were two words: synchrotron and

Trieste. “I liked the idea of working on a

huge machine. And I

also liked the idea of

working in Tri-este.”

Together with

Michael Rappolt, he

studied tempera-

ture-induced non-

equilibrium states in

multilamellar lipid

vesicles. “Compared

to equilibrium we

indeed found sub-

stantially smaller

bilayer repeat

distances , when

applying

temperature jumps

with an infrared

laser. Peter Laggner

was excited.” It took

them, however,

quite some time to

understand the

reason for this

effect. And Georg

had to develop a

new method for the

analysis of small angle X-ray scattering

data. “We needed to disentangle bilayer

thick-ness and bilayer separation from

noisy scattering data.” Applying this

method to their data yielded

disappointing results: “There was no

new structural intermediate of the lipid

bilayer, just an ultrafast thinning of the

interstitial water layer”. Still, the

publication of the new method be-came

Georg’s best cited paper and it caught

the attention of John Katsaras, a well-

known membrane biophysicist, then at

the Chalk River laboratories in Ontario,

Canada. Sup-ported by a Schrödinger

stipendium from the FWF, Georg went

for a postdoctoral stay to Canada to

work on peptide-membrane

Fact sheet:

Born 24. 11. 1970 in Salzburg

2000: PhD in Physics TU Graz

2000 – 2001: Post doctoral researcher at the

National Research Council, Ca-nadian Neutron

Source, Chalk River

2007: Habilitation in Applied Physics TU Graz

2002 – 2012: Research Scientist, Insti-tute of

Biophysics and Nanosystems Research, Austrian

Academy of Scienc-es, Graz

2012 – 2014: Assistant Professor at the Karl

Franzens University Graz

Since 2014: Associate Professor at the Karl

Franzens University Graz

Leaflet specific structure of DPPC/POPC asymmetric bilayers

above and below the melting temperature of DPPC via a

joint analysis of small angle X-ray and neutron scattering

(SAXS/SANS) data. At low temperatures (a) DPPC-rich gel-

like domains in the outer leaflet have a significantly larger

area per lipid than in symmetric DPPC bilayers due to a

coupling to the inner fluid POPC-rich leaflet. The gel-like

domains melt upon raising temperature to 50 °C, which

leads to an equilibration of lipid areas in both leaflets (b).

Figure taken from F.A. Heberle and G. Pabst, Biophys. Rev.

9: 353 (2017).

IUPAB News #69

12

interactions. “When I arrived with my

family in Canada, there was ice rain, and

the next day we had one meter of snow.

I knew that I wouldn’t stay for long

there.” After a year, he returned to

Austria, full of enthusiasm and

motivation. Again, he joined the group

of Peter Laggner, “but I had to learn a

lot when setting up my own group.”

Georg was interested then in the

mechanism behind the function of

anesthetics. “That was, except for a

paper in JACS together with Thomas

Stockner, rather unsuccessful with

respect to getting funded. Things

changed, when I switched fields and

began with studying membrane do-

mains and asymmetric bilayers”. He and

his group have been determining, how

lipids pack in the different leaflets and

domains and how that couples to

membrane protein function. Since then,

Georg became increasingly recognized

by the community: in 2016 he has

started as editorial board member of

the Biophysical Journal, and from 2010-

2013 he was Biophysics Austria

president. In the last few years, the

retirement of Peter Laggner and

restructuring of the Austri-an Academy

of Sciences led to Georg’s move to the

Karl- Franzens University Graz, where

he became associate pro-fessor at the

Institute of Molecular Biosciences. “For

me, this was a very good solution of a

difficult situation. Partic-ularly, the

improved contacts to biologists now

bring a lot of new interesting research

questions. In fact, this is how I would

define biophysics: trying to find physics

in biology”. I could start here a second

story, portraying Georg Pabst the

musician. “I had bands since school

time, it got more in-tense from my

student times on.” Georg sings, plays

guitar, and is the song-writer in

MurBeat, a band playing, what he calls,

“Mundart Funk and Rock“ i.e. with lyrics

in Austrian dialect. With some luck, you

can hear them on the local radio: “Two

of our songs are regularly played on

Radio Steiermark. And in three weeks,

we are back to the studio.” We wish

him and us a successful recording

session, and a lot of “gute Einfälle”!

Young Initiative on Biophysics: Seeding the future of biophysics in

Argentina The Young Initiative on Biophysics (YIB)

is a group conformed by students and

young researchers founded in 2015

and sponsored by the Argentine

Society of Biophysics (SAB). Macarena

Siri and Galo Balatti, Ph.D. fellows and

members of SAB founded this group

with the spirit of creating a network of

undergraduate students, Ph.D.

candidates and postdoctoral

researchers working on the diverse

and rich fields of biophysics to share

ideas, inspiration and practical advices.

Since then, the group has been

growing and nowadays it looks forward

to expand its frontiers to other Latin-

American countries in order to

strengthen connections between young

biophysicist fellows. Regional

integration is a challenge, particularly in

the developing economies of Latin

America. However, fostering such

integration is worth the effort given

that the present Ph.D. students and

early career researchers will be the

future decision-makers in scientific and

technological developments.

To fulfil its aim, the YIB has been

Latin American Crosstalk in Biophysics and Physiology, held in Salto, Uruguay;

November 2015. This meeting was the starting point for the initiative.

IUPAB News #69

13

organizing symposia and satellites

events to SAB Annual Meetings and

regional Congresses. In 2016, the first

YIB symposium took place during the IX

Ibero-American Congress of Biophysics

held in San Miguel de Tucumán,

Argentina, where Ph.D. students from

different disciplines and geographical

regions of Argentina gave outstanding

short talks. Due to the favourable

reception of the symposium, young

researchers from Argentina and other

Iberoamerican countries joined the

initiative, bringing their ideas to enrich

the initial proposal.

In 2017, the YIB organized a satellite

symposium to the Joint Meeting of

Bioscience Societies, held at the

University of Quilmes in Bernal,

Argentina. In this occasion, the

symposium included talks, lectures and

posters sessions, alongside with

touristic and recreational activities to

offer a friendly environment to share

and discuss issues related to the

everyday work life.

This year, the YIB is organizing the III

symposium and satellite meeting in La

Plata, Argentina, in conjunction with the

XLVII SAB Annual Meeting. This brain-

storming event will include

lectures, workshops and

motivational talks, as well as

recreational activities.

In our view, the academic

education of young researchers

and the strengthening of

international collaborative

networks must be a key objective

in a world where science and

technology play an increasing

important role but where,

paradoxically, international

integration seems to be under

threat. YIB is seeking to promote

and strengthen interactions

between young biophysicist

through networking meetings in

Argentina, and, in the near future,

expanding to other countries

within Latin America. We

encourage undergrad students,

Ph.D. students and postdocs to join

this initiative.

For further information about YIB

please contact Macarena Siri or Galo

Balatti to:

young.initiative.on.biophysics@gmail.com

The founding members: Macarena Siri

(center) and Galo Balatti (far right)

with the speakers of the First "Young

Biophysics" Symposium, satellite

meeting of the IX Ibero-American

Congress of Biophysics held in San

Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina,

November 2016

Second "Young Biophysics" Symposium. A satellite meeting held in Quilmes, Argentina,

November 2017.

IUPAB News #69

14

Highlights:

The 4th Annual Meeting of the

Biophysical Society of Canada was held

May 22-25, 2018 in Vancouver at Simon

Fraser University’s downtown Harbour

Centre campus. The conference brought

together over 200 participants for

plenary presentations, scientific talks

and posters, and networking

opportunities (including the conference

banquet, held on a boat cruise

alongside Vancouver’s North Shore

mountains). Scientific presentations

covered a wide range of topics within

biophysics, including protein structure

and dynamics, single-molecule

spectroscopy, computational

biophysics, membranes and lipids, cell

mechanics and dynamics and emerging

imaging techniques. In total, 40 talks

and 98 poster presentations were made

at the conference. New this year, the

conference was preceded by a Trainee

Symposium, organized by trainee

members of

the BSC

executive.

This half-day

symposium

included

sessions

focused on

transitioning

from

academia

into industry

and on

trainee-

presented

talks.

During the

meeting,

Natalie Strynadka from the University

of British Columbia was honored as the

2018 Fellow of the Biophysical Society

of Canada. She also presented the

National Lecture. Other notable

scientific highlights of the conference

included Keynote Lectures by Mei Hong

from the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Jennifer Lippincott-

Schwartz from the Janelia Research

Campus of the Howard Hughes Medical

Institute, Barbara Baird from Cornell

University, and William Ryu from the

University of Toronto. Congratulations

to the student poster award winners:

Alaa Al-Shaer, J. Andrew Alexander,

Daniel Berard, Catherine Byrne, Caitlin

Cornell, Chloe Gerak, Marvin Gunawan,

Chapin Korosec, Stephen Large,

Chantelle Leveille, Franco Li, Haydee

Mesa Galloso and Spencer Smyth.

Report on the 4th Annual Meeting of the Biophysical Society of Canada

22-25th May, 2018. Simon Fraser University’s downtown Narbour Centre campus,

Vancouver, Canada

For details, please go to https://biophysicalsociety.ca/past-

meetings/bsc-2018-vancouver-bc/. Looking forward to BSC 2019

May 28-31, 2019 in Toronto!

IUPAB News #69

15

The 5th EBSA membranes workshop

was held in La Grande Motte, Southern

France in June 2018, and attracted over

27 students and post doctoral fellows

from 14 countries, including Chile, India,

Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia

Ukraine, Germany, Spain, France, UK,

Finland, Italy, Belgium.

The format of the workshop was similar

to that used in previous workshops, and

lectures (3 -4 per day) were

supplemented by student and lecturer

lead case studies (3 – 6 per day), where

students discussed their research work,

successes and problems to a wider

audience. This seemed to be very

popular with the students, and

stimulated lots of ongoing discussions

later at meals and in the bar, and will no

doubt have created some collaborations

and exchange of expert knowledge.

The Hotel Mercure located on the

Marina of La Grande Motte was the

ideal venue for the workshop, with its

enviable location and right in the

vibrant heart of the town, it offered

magnificent views of the harbour and

sea. Being before the main holiday

season, the resort was relatively quiet,

and there was always plenty of space to

relax and group tables were conducive

to scientific and other conversations.

EBSA supported the workshop to a

significant degree, and with IUPAB

support also, it is hoped that it will be

possible to hold more of these kinds of

events in the coming years when the

main EBSA congress does not take place

(EBSA Madrid Congress in 2019).

Invited speakers and lecturers who attended the course:

- Antoinette Killian, Utrecht, NL - Model membranes and polymer-bounded nanodiscs to study protein/lipid interactions - Pierre-Emmanuel Milhiet, Montpellier, FR - AFM and Related

Report on EBSA Membranes and Lipid-Protein Interactions Workshop

Partially funded by IUPAB

10-15th June, 2018. La Grande Motte, Montpellier, France

Organizers Pierre-Emmanuel Milhiet (Montpellier University,

FR) and Anthony Watts (University of Oxford, UK).

The Venue & Location:

Hotel Mercure, La Grande Motte,

Hérault, France

Members of Scientific Advisory/

Committee Board:

- Anthony Watts (UK, President of

EBSA)

- John Seddon (UK, Secretary of

EBSA)

- Pierre-Emmanuel Milhiet

(Montpellier University, FR).

IUPAB News #69

16

over the world, including South Korea,

Iraq and India. Nobel Laureates and

graduate students alike engaged in

high quality talks, posters and

networking.

The 2018 Biennial Meeting of the

British Biophysical Society was held at

the University of Southampton in July

this year. The three-day meeting

attracted over 100 scientists from all

Microscopies for Membrane Biophysics - Manuel Prieto, Lisbon, PT - Membrane Biophysics, Phases and Lipid Domains. Cholesterol in Membranes. - John Seddon, Imperial College London, UK - X-ray and Neutron Diffraction of Lipid Membranes - Sébastien Granier, Montpellier, FR - Structural Biology of Membrane Proteins - Christian Eggeling, Oxford, UK - Single-Molecule Applications in Membrane

Biophysics. - Sandrine Sagan, Paris, FR - Membrane Active Peptides: Cell Penetrating Peptides vs. Antimicrobial Peptides - Ilpo Vattulainen, Tampere University of Technology, FI - Molecular Dynamics Simulation - Simulation Techniques in Membranes - Bonnie Wallace, Birbeck College London, UK - CD Spectroscopy of Membrane proteins - Anthony Watts, Oxford, UK - Solid

The scientific program was divided into

the themes; cell membrane, cell

interior, the whole cell, delivery into the

cell and emerging imaging technologies

and also included an award session, in

which the British

Biophysical Society

Young Investigator

Award, the Institute

of Physics Tom Duke

Lecturer Award and

the inaugural Sosei

Heptares Prize for

Biophysics were

awarded to Lorna

Dougan, Robert

Endres and Elspeth

Garman, respectively.

The plenary lecture

was delivered by

Hartmut Michel, MPI

Frankfurt.

The meeting was

conducted in a

relaxed atmosphere

that combined

scientific excellence

with an informality

that empowered even

masters and PhD

Report on British Biophysical Society Biennial Meeting 11-13th July 2018. University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

British Biophysical Society Committee members who were able to attend its Biennial meeting in Southampton this summer, together with honoured guests. Left to Right: Tharin Blumenshein (BBS Secretary), Tony Watts, Richard Henderson (honoured guest), Olwyn Byron (BBS Chair), Hartmut Mi-chel (honoured guest), Mark Wallace (BBS Webmaster, IoP Biological Physics Representative), Ann Dixon (BBS Treasurer), Syma Khalid (2018 BBS Biennial Meeting Chair), John Seddon.

State NMR - Drug Targeting - Daniel Levy, Curie Institute - Cryo-

Electron Microscopy and tomography

The Total Number of regular participants, including plenary speakers but excluding accompanying guests and local organizers of the Course/Workshop/Special Meeting was: 37 Regular Participants Included:

Graduate students (26)

Postdoctoral students (1)

IUPAB News #69

17

students to ask probing questions of the

more established scientists. The

sunshine and world cup fever sweeping

through the country at the time

facilitated the social inclusiveness and

cohesion of the meeting, as did the

unexpected karaoke event being held in

the student bar after the conference

dinner.

From the organiser’s perspective, while

our science speaks for itself, it was

immensely pleasing to be reminded of

the collegiate and supportive feeling

within the UK and global biophysics

communities, which were very much on

display at the 2018 meeting. Now we

look forward to the 2020 meeting which

will mark the 60th anniversary of the

BBS.

Syma Khalid

BBS committee member and 2018 BBS

Biennial Meeting Chair

The Italian Society for Pure and Applied

Biophysics (SIBPA) held its XXIV National

Congress in the town of Ancona, Italy,

on September 10-13, 2018. The

Awards recipients. Left to Right: Lorna Dougan (left) presented with the BBS Young Investigator Award by Olwyn Byron; Robert Endres (left) congratulated by Chiu Fan Lee on his delivery of the Institute of Physics Tom Duke Lecture; Elspeth Garman (right) presented with the Sosei Heptares Prize for Biophysics by Richard Henderson

Report on the XXIV National Congress of The Italian Society for

Pure and Applied Biophysics 10- 13th September 2018. Università Politecnica delle

Marche, Ancona, Italy

The Congress web site is at: http://

www.pa.ibf.cnr.it/sibpa/

CongressoNazionaleSIBPAAncona/

Following the same format of recent

editions, the program of SIBPA 2018

included five sessions that covered all

aspects of modern biophysics, from

molecular to cellular, computational

and applied, with emphasis on

interdisciplinary approaches. Three

exciting keynote lectures spanning from

bio-nanotechnology to fundamental

biomolecular interactions were

delivered by renowned scientists,

namely Giancarlo Ruocco, (University of

Roma “La Sapienza” and IIT-

CLNS@SAPIENZA), Ivo Rendina (IMM-

CNR, Napoli), and Maria Antonietta Ricci

(University of Roma Tre).

Five invited speakers started each

session. Alberto Boffi (University of

Rome “La Sapienza) for the Molecular

Biophysics session; Matteo Ceccarelli

(University of Cagliari) for the

Theoretical-Computational Biophysics

session; Riccardo Cicchi (INO-CNR,

Firenze) for the Applied Biophysics

session; Giorgio Rispoli (University of

Ferrara) for the Cellular Biophysics

impressive venue was the former

Villarey barracks, now hosting the

Università Politecnica delle Marche.

IUPAB News #69

18

session; Sergio Enrique Moya (Center

for Cooperative Research in

Biomaterials, San Sebastian, Spain) for

the Biophysics at the nanoscale session.

In addition, 40 oral communications

and 30 poster were presented to the

meeting.

The congress was attended by over 90

participants, out of which more than

half were young scientists at early

stages of their scientific carrier. SIBPA

supported 20 of them with fellowships

that covered in full the congress

expenses. The traditional ceremony of

SIBPA Awards presentation concluded

the 2018 Congress. The Prize “Antonio

Borsellino” for the best PhD Thesis in

biophysics was awarded to Giuseppe

Sancataldo (University of Genova and

Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia). The Prize

“Gianfranco Menestrina” for the best

M.Sc. thesis was awarded to Denise

Pezzuoli (University of Parma). The

“Marina Diana Mercurio – SIBPA” Prize,

meant to recognize scientists whose

work has been distinctly

interdisciplinary, was assigned to

Francesco Lenci (CNR, Pisa).

The congress “Advances in Brillouin

Light Scattering & BioBrillouin

Meeting” was held in Perugia from the

14th to the 16th of September (https://

sites.google.com/view/advances-in-bls-

2018).

The meeting was organized by

the Group of High-resolution Optical

Spectroscopy and related Techniques

(GHOST) - https://sites.google.com/

view/ghost-laboratory/home a mixed

unit that involves personnel from

the Department of Physics and Geology

of the University of Perugia and from

the Istituto Officina dei Materiali

(IOM) of the National Res1earch Council

- in collaboration with the Core Group

IUPAB News #69

of the Bio-Brillouin Cost Action- https://

www.biobrillouin.eu/.

The congress, attended by about 100

participants from all over the world

(about 80 International and 20 Italian),

celebrated 30 years of BLS activity of

the GHOST laboratory. A Special Session

was devoted to the 40th Anniversary of

the Tandem Fabry-Pérot

Interferometer. This session ended with

the conferment ceremony of PhD

"Honoris Causa" to John R.

Sandercock for his invention and its

impact on science and technology.

The scientific program included several

plenary sessions, as well as parallel

symposia covering different research

areas: advances in the instrumentation

for Brillouin Light Scattering,

characterization of magnetic

nanostructures, mechanical

characterization of viscoelastic

materials with particular emphasis on

biological materials extremely relevant

in life science.

The congress was endorsed by SIBPA –

Società Italiana di Biofisica Pura ed

Applicata- and EBSA-European

Biophysical Societies' Association.

Report on Advances in Brillouin Light Scattering & BioBrillouin Meeting

14-16th September 2018. Perugia, Italy

IUPAB News #69

19

The School was held at the Faculty of

Science, University of Split, Croatia. This

eminent and internationally recognized

School, has been traditionally

organized, for more than 35 years, by

the Croatian Biophysical Society. The

recent School was also co-organized by

the EU Cooperation in Science and

Technology - COST Actions CA15126

“ARBRE-MOBIEU“, CM1306 „Molecular

Machines“ and BM1403 „Native MS“

and for the first time by the Faculty of

Science, University of Split, Croatia. It

was supported by EBSA (European

Biophysical Societies’ Association) and

Institute of physics, Zagreb, as well as

by the companies Nanotemper, Bruker,

JPK, Oxford Instruments and Asolutic.

This year the School developed further

on the concept of the hands-on training

workshops that were provided

beforehand and

along with the ex-

cathedra lectures by

renowned scientists.

This format was

introduced to the

School in 2016 and

shows great promise

for the future.

Prof. Fraser

MacMillan and Prof.

Frank Sobott, chairs

of the co-organizing

COST actions,

participated as lecturers, as well as the

President of EBSA, Prof. Anthony Watts

and past President, Prof. Helmut

Grubmueller, thus substantiating

further the EBSA support to the

School.

Schools have 70+ students, usually

from 20-30, mostly European

countries and some from beyond, like

Russia, Australia and Iran. About 15-20

lecturers participate at each School,

mostly from EU and some from USA,

Canada, Australia.

All the contributions by lecturers and by

students, who present posters and also

give short talks are much appreciated

and are always a great incentive for the

organization of the next event, now the

15th School in 2020.

Tomislav Vuletić

School Chair, secretary of the Society

14th “Greta Pifat Mrzljak” International School of Biophysics “University of Split”

August 23th – September 1st, 2018 | Split, Croatia

HRVATSKO BIOFIZIČKO DRUŠTVO

Croatian Biophysical Society

http://biofizika.hr

HR - 10000 Zagreb, Bijenička 54

IUPAB News #69

20

Important facts

Travel:

The venue is reachable by 3

international airports: Tivat (15 min by

car), Podgorica (1.5h), Dubrovnik (~3h

with border crossing)

Accommodation:

For the accommodation

arrangements you are welcome to

contact Miro & Sons in Kotor on this

email: info@miroandsons.com, as well

as to use other booking means: there

many opportunities for economical

accommodation in the vicinity of the

Institute from private villas for rent to

small hotels

Duration:

3 days

Lecture hall:

50+ persons

Method:

Tutorial lectures, round table

discussions, student posters

Social events:

Excursion of the Boka bay; diner

at the seacoast

Registration fee:

200 €

Registration fee waiver still available

upon request

For further info contact:

clm@bio.bg.ac.rs

http://clm.bio.bg.ac.rs/2018/04/04/

nerka7-mechanobiology/

Program

Saturday, 06 October 2018

15:00 - 16:00 Registration and snacks

16:00 Welcome address

16:30 - 17:30 Eduardo Perozo, USA

“Mechanosensitive ion channel

structure & function”

17:30 - 19:00 Yannis Missirlis, Greece:

“Tissue Morphogenesis and

Mechanoepigenetics”.

20:00 Dinner - get together and meet

the speaker

Sunday, 07 October 2018

Mechanosensitive ion channels

08:00 - 09:00 On site breakfast and

snacks get together

09:00 - 10:30 David Beech, UK:

“Endothelial Peizo1 and shear stress

sensing”

10:30 - 12:00 Massimo Vassalli, Italy:

“Role of membrane lipids in Piezo1

mediated cellular

mechanotransduction”

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch brake

14:00 - 15:30 Ruhma Syeda, USA,

“Mechanosensitivity of Piezo1 ion

channels”

15:30 - 17:00 Keiji Naruse, Japan:

“Mechanomedicine”

17:00 - 18:30 Aleksandra Mitrović,

Serbia: “Tension or compression - plants

or structural engineers “

20:00 Dinner - get together and meet

the speakers

Monday, 08 October 2018

Mechanisms across nature and

techniques

08:00 - 09:00 On site - breakfast and

snacks get together

09:00 - 10:30 Eric Honoré, France:

“Molecular biophysics of mechano-

transduction”

10:30 - 12:00 Vladimir Parpura, USA:

„Rheology in astrocytes“

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch brake

14:00 - 15:30 Tanja Dučić, Spain:

“Synchrotron-based microscopy of

cytoskeletal mechanostructures”

15:30 - 17:00 Gabor Steinbach,

Hungary: “Differential polarization

imaging using confocal and re-scan

confocal microscopes”

17:00 - 18:30 Jasmina Popović, Serbia:

“Responses to mechanical stimuli -

chemistry of reaction wood”

18:30 - 19:30 Wrap up discussion panel -

“Translational value of

mechanobiology” (moderators Boris

Martinac, Ksenija Radotić, Pavle Andjus)

20:00 Farewell Dinner

Mechanobiology International Biophysics School “Academician Radoslav K. Andjus” (NERKA)

October 6th – 8th, 2018 | Kotor, Montenegro

Partially funded by IUPAB

IUPAB News #69

21

IUPAB News #69

22

IUPAB News #69

23

IUPAB News #69

24

IUPAB News #69

25

IUPAB News #69

26

IUPAB News #69

Executive Committee of IUPAB

President: Dr. Marcelo MORALES, Brasil, mmorales@biof.ufrj.br

Past President: Prof. Dr. Zihe RAO, China, raozh@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn

President Elect: Prof. Dr. Manuel PRIETO, Portugal, manuel.prieto@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

Secretary General, Prof. Dr. Juan C. GÓMEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, Spain, jcgomez@um.es

Treasurer: Prof. Dr. John BAENZIGER, Canada, John.Baenziger@uottawa.ca

Council of IUPAB

Silvia del Valle ALONSO, Argentina, silviadelvalle@gmail.com

David CROSSMAN, New Zealand, d.crossman@auckland.ac.nz

Erick J. DUFOURC, France, e.dufourc@iecb.u-bordeaux.fr

Hans-Joachim GALLA, Germany, gallah@uni-muenster.de

Hiroyuki NOJI, Japan, hnoji@appchem.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

R. Daniel PELUFFO, Uruguay, malueli164@gmail.com

Peter POHL, Austria, Peter.Pohl@jku.at

Ksenija RADOTIC, Serbia, xenia@imsi.rs

Ch. Mohan RAO, India, mohan@ccmb.res.in

Bryan Trevor SEWELL, South Africa, trevor.sewell@uct.ac.za

Frances SEPAROVIC, Australia, fs@unimelb.edu.au

Giuseppe ZUCCHELLI, Italy, giuseppe.zucchelli@unimi.it

The Executive Committe and the Council

are depicted at the end of he General

Assembly in Edinburgh, 18th July, 2017

IUPAB News Number 69, September, 2018

27

IUPAB News #69

should be returned to the Secretary General at least before June 30th of the year prior to the event if it is scheduled for the first semester of the following year or before the 31st of December if it will take place du-ring the second semester. If organizers of meetings are seeking only the approval of IUPAB, including the use of the IUPAB logo, but not requesting financial support, applica-tions may be submitted to the Secre-tary General at any time and will be considered by the Executive Commit-tee by correspondence.

Important Announ-

cement

Sponsorship Policy

of IUPAB As from now on there will be a change in the sponsorship policy with respect to that posted in: http://iupab.org/about/sponsorship/ So that point 8, will read: Applications for financial support of Conferences, Schools and other

Activities of the

INTERNATIONAL UNION for

PURE and APPLIED

BIOPHYSICS

From the Secretary-General:

Professor Dr. Juan C. Gomez-

Fernandez

Courier address:

Departamento de Bioquímica

y Biología Molecular A,

Facultad de Veterinaria,

Universidad de Murcia,

Edificio 17, 30100.Murcia,

Spain.

Telephone: +34-868884766.

Email: jcgomez@um.es

IUPAB is registered in France

according Loi du 1er Juillet

1901-Art. 5, n°

ordre 03/000309, n° dossier

00158190

The International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics (IUPAB) was formed in Stockholm in 1961 as the International Organisa-tion for Pure and Applied Biophysics. It was established as the International Union in 1966, when it became a member of the ICSU (International Council for Science) family. Affiliated to it are the national adhering bodies of 61 countries. Its function is to support research and teaching in biophysics. Its principal regular activity is the triennial International Congresses and General As-semblies.

Note from the Editor: IUPAB News will be happy to reproduce articles previously published by bulletins or other publications of any of our Adhering Bodies. We will be also happy to consider articles written by biophysicists on scientific or other subjects of broad interest for the biophysical community. You may contact the Secretary General with respect to this matter. IUPAB is not responsible for the opinions expressed in the articles here included, nor necessarily share these opinions.

IUPAB News Number 69, September, 2018

The Editor of IUPAB News is the IUPAB Secretary General Juan Carmelo Gómez-Fernández. This publication is

produced and published at the University of Murcia, Departamento de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular A, Cam-

pus de Espinardo, Murcia, Spain.

Assistant Editor: Alessio Ausili

It can be found online at: http://iupab.org/category/newsletters/

ISSN: 2616-5589